"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

I find bantering on bulletin boards the way we are doing it is a waste to some extent. If you want a proper debate, then let's do it in writing, for Synergy 2007 (a hardcover text that is submitted to the Library of Canada).

I will say these very few words, to make a few points so that you can get started on your first submission. I then will reply and send it back, and you can reply back.

You stated: "Brian, you are the one's making claims about J-reps being more effective than other methods, the onus of proof is on you. I haven't seen anything to convince me it is any more effective than any other rep method."

Considering we are talking about practical application, the provide evidence that this method of training is more effective than lifting through a full ROM, it is necessary to have people apply it seriously and long-term and to get advanced trainee's feedback. Thus far we have, and they all claim superiority. Detailing reasons on paper as to why it cannot possibly be more effective is illogical since we're talking about the physical effects a person would experience.

You stated: "You and others have stated the pump is a significant factor in hypertrophy stimulation..."

I won't even comment about the opinion of a non-weight training PhD who likely does not even know how to prescribe a proper exercise program, but I did a word search in the JReps book and no where does it indicate that the pump is a "significant" factor. In fact, the book CLEARLY states that my views on the value of the pump are hypothetical. I recommend you actually quote from the book rather than put words into my mouth.

It is not about your interpretation of what was written, but the actual words. If I alluded to differently on a message board it is because I type fast and don't spend time proofing every word and phrase.

In regard to the load relative to positioning, you definitely do not understand zone training, in that specific zones can be targeted with whatever load is appropriate. It's not an issue of "start here and end there," like stage reps. Nor does your argument quash the results people are achieving in their full ROM strength abilities or overall development. Again, you are telling these people that they shouldn't be experiencing certain things simply because you say so in written word.

You stated: "As for the growth, I haven't seen proof that this produces any more growth than any other rep method is capable of."

And so, Mr. Shortt stagnates at 150+ pounds, although he trains to fatigue, does forced reps and negatives, etc., and then puts on 12 pounds of lean (determined by measurements, body weight and a reliable body comp system), but that does not count. I could not budge my weight beyond 190 pounds for a decade, and then suddenly get to 202 pounds, but that doesn't count.

And then you have the effects of Coombes and Ellison, two people who did full ROM training to fatigue with forced reps, rest pause, etc., and they don't count. And then there are the others on the zone site (and more to come) who have not produced any change, no matter what they changed, except for the fact of working in zones.

Even when there is proof in front of you, something you can see, it doesn't count. Based on this, nothing can convince you, and so when you begin publishing your case studies with your measurements, photos, etc., I will claim the same thing: "I don't see any difference or that what you are doing is any better than some yahoo training in his basement with a set of cement-filled weights.

You stated: "Increased vascularity and mitochondrial density wouldn't make any noticeable difference in overall muscle size, and these things occur with other repetition methods any way. What proof do you have that these things occur to a greater degree with J-reps than with other repetition methods?"

Well, Drew, the onus is on you. What is causing the greater growth and muscle thickness and fullness in the people who are using the method? I hypothesized in the book that it may be related to the pump since it is so extreme in such few sets relative to FROM training.

I never stated that was the case, but that I hypothesized as much since I didn't have another answer. However, I did make reference to glycogen utilization and overcompensation, but I'm uncertain that would affect the effect people are obtaining... a heavy, thick solid feel to the muscles all the time (and not just a day after a workout). But I supposed that's all in their heads, too.

But I can say this, the vast number of contractions per unit of time must have an effect if it isn't the corresponding pump. It is not an issue of simply doing a lot of reps, but doing it as per the recommendations of the method... to achieve those high numbers in only minutes of training, which cannot be achieved by any other means. Nor does it work with just one part of the ROM in descending set fashion; been there and done that.

You stated: "I just went through the section on adaptation to exercise in the 2002 edition of Skeletal Muscle Structure, Function, & Plasticity, and there isn't even mention of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. This is one of the best books on the effecs of exercise on muscle physiology, so if it was significant, they'd probably have covered it."

I have several books on physiology, and they are rather barren on exercise in general, and particularly when discussing growth and optimizing growth. If I relieved on those books to tell me what to do to develop my physique I would have given up weight training long ago.

You further stated: "Regardless of the conditions under which the pump is achieved, the pump in and of itself is not a significant factor in growth stimulation."

You keep using the word "significant" as if I stated as much. Read the book again. I indicated clearly that it COULD be a contributor, and that the effect could be more pronounced by achieving a maximum pump under minimum time while under intense conditions (and not the fluff pump you keep alluding to).

"Without the photos being properly standardized, it is difficult to judge objectively."

Well, Ellison's photos were taken in the exact same place in the exact same stance. Coombe's looks pretty darn close. My torso and leg shots between age 40 and 41 were taken in exactly the same location with the same camera settings (They may look a bit different since I don't use any overhead light and am dependent on whatever daylight comes through the widow, whether it be a sunny or cloudy day).

Regardless, when a person's pecs look an inch thicker and the arm looks an inch wider, it's so obvious as to what changed regardless of lighting. Give me a break! Andrew Shortt, for example was here last year, and then again this year. I know what he looks like and the changes he made, and it was obvious to others when they met him. Sweep it under the carpet since physical evidence is an inconvenience.

You stated: "It's pushed heavily enough on this forum, Fred Hahn's, and PFP."

I don't ever recall this being mentioned on Personal Fitness Professional, and "heavily" (my god, you exaggerated). And you are a liar, since I CLEARLY stated that I DID NOT START ANY OF THE POSTS, BUT THAT PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE BRINGING IT UP IN SPADES!

And so, being pushed heavily on TWO boards does not constitute me and a group of renegades infiltrating the Internet with JReps talk. This is an example of your exaggeration and why I am asking you to start quoting from the book when you make arguments for the published article.

You stated: "A few people stated this in PM's. If they want to make it public, I'll leave that to them."

How convenient. OK... a number of people gained 20 pounds of muscle on this method after not making any results with you as an instructor. I can't tell you who since if they want to make it public, I'll leave them to it. See how that works?

It's BS and irrelevant to an objective argument since anything can be said and they backed up with "I need to protect my sources." Since I talk to the people who bought the book and who have used it seriously, I know what is going on, and so I suspect these are people who think they know what to do, bastardized it, and then complained. In any case, hard to see how a person would lose muscle by training harder, unless volume and frequency were not prescribed properly, which is an issue of overall Rx and not how JReps.

You stated: "As for my clients results, I won't represent them as anything other than what they are - examples of what particular individuals were able to accomplish using particular methods." Ditto for JReps, and yet you ignore them as nothing more than anectdotes, lack of standardized photos (although some of them are and the changes can be seen clearly nonetheless).

Next time my client makes changes via measurements and body comp changes I'll have to tell them that the change does not exist since I don't have standardized photos to prove it.

You stated: "You are making a lot of outstanding claims about the results J-reps is producing, but I haven't seen anything to convince me it's any better than many other repetition methods. It sounds like hype to me. "

What is hype is your exaggeration of the extent of what I am claiming. I am claiming it is a more productive way to train, and the REAL people who are using it seriously claim the same thing.

You stated: "I won't make a claim unless there is either adequate evidence to support it or reasoning based on sound premises."

Some of your claims about what I stated are not quoted, but exaggerated. And I have adequate evidence... my own body... and the bodies of those who use the method. Are you saying that everything is in their heads... measurements, body comp, visual appearance when they or others look at their bodies?

You stated: "I'm not in contest condition now, but I don't look bad, by any stretch." That's good... you got lean. Now, how much mass have you developed over the past few years and what is your proof of the gain? A friend of mine won an EAS contest by getting really lean, but lost 12 pounds of muscle in the process. The claims behind JReps deal with muscle hypertrophy and more thorough strength development and not getting lean (that's an issue of diet).

You stated: "You're assuming I'm only talking about clinical exercise studies. There is a lot of useful information in other areas of research, particularly genetics, cellular biology, endocrinology, etc."

Yes, I'm certain they work with advanced trainees trying to eke out a few extra pounds of muscle. None of that information provides any clear direction on how to prescribe exercise effectively.

Ask any person with a PhD in exercise science to do this, and the honest ones will be the first to admit that they are not good at personal training... they know the supposed science behind things, yet cannot apply it practically. That should tell you something. Contact the genetic specialists and ask them to prescribed an individualized program for someone and let me know what they recommend. To use such resources as support is to make one's self look intelligent by being able to quote it, but it does nothing for practical application, and I can prove it:

You contend that what I'm doing is nothing special and will not produce better results, although I suspect you would agree that I can achieve results as well as you can (for the sake of argument, neither of us is better than the other at fitness Rx).

However, much of what I do with zone training you claim not to be supported by science and what you do is supported by the research, which indicates the problem with the research... two methods at odds and yet both are producing results.

You stated: "I never stated people don't increase the loads with JReps. I asked people who suggested load wasn't important whether they thought they could improve without ever increasing the load."

You asked 'people.' Who are these people since you are challenging ME. Focus on what I say, not other 'people.' I CLEARLY indicate that it is not the load that is important, but how the load is used. A person can increase an exercise by 20 pounds, but if his form goes to crap, then what good is it? This is very clear in the book, which you apparently no longer have.

You stated: "That's a 5 year period. The changes you've made over the past 5 years aren't what we're discussing here. We're talking about the changes made since you've started using J-reps. Unless you've moved since then, you have no excuse."

Since using JReps: lean mass increase by 10 pounds; upper arm increase by half-inch; upper thigh increase by half-inch (and much better separation); chest measurement increase by more than a half-inch. Now, this is since my BEST condition and fullness at age 35. I improved in detail and muscle shape to some extent up to age 40, but my lean mass did not increase (yes, the body can take on a slightly different appearance without an increase in size.... a re-arrangement of the tissues?).

I stated JReps at age 40, in the Summer of 2005. I took photos at age 41, in the Summer of 2006. Both photo sets at age 40 and 41 were taken in the same spot at the same camera distance. A person easily can convert to B&W if desired, if you want them more standardized. As for lighting, I addressed that above... I don't use any artificial lighting. Hence, they were standardized. Look at my torso; it was held in the same manner, as it was at age 35 (although at a different location with overhead lighting, which gives the appearance of more leanness).

You stated: "This might be ok for magazine ads, but for backing up claims of a particular type of physical change, standardization is important. Or at least a more recent before picture."

My photo at age 40 was taken 1.5 months before starting JReps. I didn't look any better.

You stated: "Are you saying there is no value in learning about physiology and current research related to exercise? That would be laughable."

What I'm saying is that I have yet to read anything that helps to direct a person toward proper fitness Rx that comes from a physiology test. Developing the body is as much a craft as it is a science, and although a text may suggest that "the load is important," it does not say anything about how that load is used, and then people like you and Hahn come along and claim that the load is the most important thing in hypertrophy; a one-dimension point of view.

You stated: "Perhaps the problem isn't the texts, but your understanding of them, or your ability to translate the information into practical application."

Right back at you. Apparently I must know how to interpret my own experiences, which is evidence through my physique. Mr. Coombes, who is not a personal trainer by trade, and who does not read your research, seemed to have made good changes in only 8 workouts with Mr. Ellison, while implementing a method that apparently is not backed by the research.

You stated: "So you're saying that people who study biology, anatomy and physiology, kinesiology, and other exercise related fields, are worse off than if they just read muscle mags? This is like saying a four year subscription to Muscle & Fitness would better prepare one for a career in exercise than a health or exercise-related degree."

Basically, yes. Consider all the 'ignorant' people who do nothing more than read magazines and who are smart enough to pay attention to their own patterns of responses. Now compare their bodies to the Superslow crowd, yourself and others. Do you see any significant differences? Not really, and there are as many well developed bodies of people who don't read such the science tests as those who do.

This clearly states that paying attention to one's responses to exercise is of more importance than reading what happens at the cellular level when cells are under strain. There is nothing wrong with education and learning some details behind the process, but I have never known it to develop better bodies. If so, the onus is on you... show me all the incredible physiques of these learned people and their clients.

You stated: "I've said before on many occassions, results from exercise have far more to do with the method than the tools used. Well balanced cams help by providing more efficient loading of the target musculature, but ultimately results depend on how they're used."

If that is the case, who are these people who use such machines, and where are their standarized photos, to show the differences between using great cammed machines and not using any cammed machine?

You stated: "It is important to distinguish between making the load feel heavier as a result of fatigue versus making it feel heavier because of a change in biomechanics."

Yes, two separate issue, but both of which have an influence on the other for overall gains. The differences in results of training to fatigue and NTF are obvious.

You stated: "Both load AND proper exercise performance are important. Perfect form without adequate load isn't going to accomplish much..."

I never state this, although you may just be elaborating. I recommend using a load that is heavy enough relative to the exercise and ability to maintain proper form as recommended via the JReps method. Nor did I say that it was exclusive to JReps, but you did allude to the idea that progression was not an issue or an important one with this method. Rather, progression is vital ONLY IF the method can be sustained in proper form. Otherwise, it is not a true progression, but merely lifting a heavier load under improper conditions.

You stated: "if you continue to do the same exercise, in the same manner, with that same 90 pounds and never try to increase it, you're not going to progress very far. You can make the exercise "harder" (depending on how you define the term) in many different ways, but the only kind of harder that is going to make a significant difference in hypertrophy in the long run is increased load."

Indicate where I stated that a person would always use the same 90 pounds? I clearly stated in the book to utilize a weight until it no longer feels challenging, relative to the JReps variation implemented. And here is an example of harder without using more weight... try stopping in the bottom portion of a squat for 3 seconds, as opposed to half a second. Are you telling me that the only way to make changes in hypertrophy is to add more weight, rather than attempting why I suggest with the longer stop in an area that is very challenging? See, this is what science books have done.

Next, consider using 250 pounds in the squat and going deep, and only coming up three-quarters way. Next, a person uses 300 pounds, does not descend quite as deep and stands up all the way (minus a lockout of the knees). I've done years of intense squatting and I can tell you that the 250 pound set produces far better changes in hypertrophy than the 300 pound set. In fact, my legs are larger and better developed now, and yet I use less weight. My pecs are better developed now, and I use less weight than I did a decade ago.

You stated: "Load is more important than fatigue for the purpose of hypertrophy. There is a linear relationship between load and microtrauma andInsulin-like Growth Factor and Mechano growth factor are both sensitive to load. Fatigue is an important factor for various reasons, but load is more important for hypertrophy."

Actually, that is wrong. The load is used to produce a fatigue response, and a fatigue response is reliant on a load for such to occur. Hence, it is how the load is used to achieve a fatigue response that is most important in hypertrophy. I guess those scientists never explained to you the Principles of Reliance, Interaction, and Influence. You can download the free article off our site in the Synergy 2005 section.

You stated: "you are selling books and videos about it and it's named after you."

The I.A.R.T. is selling the products... a non-profit organization that is a separate entity from myself. I don't earn any money from it. As for the name, that was done by Andrew Shortt... I had a different name in place, and even now it is more commonly referred to as Zone Training. And I still have your e-mail about how you felt about it being named after me (as if you were offended by it... very strange, as if you should even care what the method was called).

You stated: "Considering it's only been less than a year, it's very, very premature to be making any statements about lasting power."

Name something that continued to provide the goods beyond a few months. If a highly adaptive, advanced trainee's body still has great workouts, muscle fullness, etc. after a year of utilizing the method, then I consider that good staying power. You may have a different opinion, although you've been bouncing around yourself quite a bit over the past year... SS, HD, Omega-sets, Rest Pause, etc., etc.

You stated: "If it works for you, great. I never said it didn't. I am just very skeptical of claims being made about it being so much more effective than everything else, and some of the claims, which were addressed in the initial post, simply aren't true."

Here we go again... a person who did not believe in it initially, who then tried it in a few workouts (did you take standardized before photos before doing so?), and who then is skeptical. Whatever, Drew. Those who are using it seriously are not skeptical.

You stated: "We're getting our Korr ReeVue tomorrow and will be testing one of the clients who's progress we're going to be recording a little more closely than others as a case study, and will post info on it when it's finished."

Yes, that's the metablic tester, isn't it? Did you know that you cannot calibrate the system or test to see if it is calibrated relative to barometric pressure, temperature, etc., but will have to trust the technology. Did you know that the system does not allow you to account for fluctuations in readings, such as slight arm movement, coughing, etc.? You claim to be reading the science books but will be using a tool that is inaccurate and cannot be trusted. I recommend you return the item and investigate clinical-quality testing equipment via vacumed.com or some other provider.

You stated: "I didn't make claims about rest pause producing better results than anything else I've ever done, or being better than any other way of training. I also didn't claim any specific magnitude of change. I just said we had good results with it. "

Prove that the results were good. Where are the standardized photos, measurements, body comp, etc?

You stated: "The certification isn't mine, it's a collaboration between several people. "

Yes, you are involved. You have motive to denounce the IART to the best of your ability since we are likely your prime competitor (with several SS people purchasing our materials and taking our certifications, and with the HIT Arthur Jones/MedX certification we offer).

No problem, I don't care if I have competition since I don't make my living from the IART. In any case, I'm still up for a proper debate in writing and will stop at this point. My ability to debate and detail the issues far exceed casual Internet discussions. I look forward to your submission and thank you in advance.

As you wish, but I won't be giving details of my arguments on a discussion board. If you visit the zone site, the before and after photos are in plain site, including when I was 40 and then less than a month ago at 41. Ellisons photos and Coombes photos are there as well. And once you get your head around the idea of before and after photos, you can consider the body comp and measurements I provided.

Interesting how Hahn ignored the body comp and measurements and asked for photos, and once I provided photos he then wanted to see the body comp results printed out. It just keeps going on and on, and in the meantime these people haven't made any changes themselves.

The invitation is still open if interested, but if you start quoting studies, I want to know the details. For example, what was the weight training protocol in place for the scientists to determine that the pump has little or no effect on hypertrophy and how did they determine this in live individuals, i.e., with what tool of measurement did they use and how did they separate the causes of hypertrophy (load, pump, fatigue, etc) in the final analysis? Simply quoting a text is insufficient.

Drew Baye wrote:
I've already said everything that needs to be said in the original thread, and have no interest in submitting anything to Synergy. I prefer to keep discussions of this nature on more neutral ground.

Why not post some of those before/afters you mention here?

I would think you could write a good debate Drew and after Synergy is out I'm sure Johnston would let you add it to your articles on your own website. Plus it would come printed in a nice hardcover book. Plus you are long past the contest date for coughing up your case study so it would be a decent professional gesture on your part.

The only apparent evidence supporting j-reps amounts to testimonials, primarily by people affiliated with the IART.

I have no problem in principle with j-reps and would make no claim as to this method not working. But Johnston seems to feel that the testimonials justify this method as being superior, when one could find equivalent testimonials for a large variety of methods.

As an example, Doggcrapp training has literally dozens of testimonials and professional bodybuilders using this system who have tried everything and report better progress with this method than anything else. No jreps in sight.

Further, attempting to degrade an opponent's position on the basis of their own physique IS an example of the logical fallacy of ad hominem, which literally means "against the man." Asserting that a person's argument fails due to personal shortcomings of that individual IS fallacious reasoning, plain and simple. If Drew weighed 100 lbs and had never gained an ounce of muscle in his life, his ARGUMENT still stands on its own merits.

And I'm surprised nobody said this, but after viewing both the zone-training website and Drew Baye's own website, Drew appears noticably more muscular than some of the zone training case studies, including professional trainer Andrew Shortt who is arguing on this very forum about personal results!

So, is jreps justified because Brian is more muscular than Drew? Or is jreps unjustified because Drew is more muscular than Andrew? The obvious answer is that the physiques of these individuals are totally irrelevent to the argument.

Yes, the case studies are data points of sorts, but given the lack of controls (i.e. when one says "my diet remained the same," minus strict observation of such, we have NO way of knowing this other than simply taking an individual's word for it), one cannot use them as a sole resource of justification.

In short, there are a handful of trainees, including advanced trainees, who personally report jreps to have improved their gains. This may well justify somebody experimenting with this method.

But when the argument devolves to ad hominem attacks on physique development and other silliness, particularly by the very people who have a financially vested interest in this program (IART), I think people are going to be turned away from its possible usefulness.

But when the argument devolves to ad hominem attacks on physique development and other silliness, particularly by the very people who have a financially vested interest in this program (IART), I think people are going to be turned away from its possible usefulness.

If I hear 'ad hominem'one more time... Can't anyone just say insult anymore? This has all taken a turn for the sureal objectivistic.

By the way we're not making any money on the J-reps phenomenom as we are a charity or something and only want to educate.

Jreps are valid because enough people subscribe. Haven't you ever heard of 'rule by consensus'?

But when the argument devolves to ad hominem attacks on physique development and other silliness, particularly by the very people who have a financially vested interest in this program (IART), I think people are going to be turned away from its possible usefulness.

If I hear 'ad hominem'one more time... Can't anyone just say insult anymore? This has all taken a turn for the sureal objectivistic.

By the way we're not making any money on the J-reps phenomenom as we are a charity or something and only want to educate.

Jreps are valid because enough people subscribe. Haven't you ever heard of 'rule by consensus'?

Ad hominem does NOT simply mean to insult somebody, though this is a common misinterpretation of the term.

You can insult somebody's physique and then critique their argument. Having insulted that person isn't a case of ad hominem UNLESS you are using those insults as justification in your rebuttal.

Example:

You have a bad physique, ergo your arguments concerning physique development are suspect and probably invalid - this is a case of ad hominem.

You have a bad physique but your argument is invalid for the following reasons - this is not.

It's possible to insult people without committing fallacies. Hinging your argument on the shortcomings of others is what crosses the line from being insulting to outright fallacious reasoning.

shlevon wrote:
Further, attempting to degrade an opponent's position on the basis of their own physique IS an example of the logical fallacy of ad hominem

Great post. Unfortunately there are people who will NEVER understand or accept this. I've learned to accept this fact, and expect it from certain people (HIT comes to mind).

I am however pretty shocked to see people like Brian and Andrew stoop to this level. I'm currently experimenting with Zones and liking it so far (too soon for any conclusive results), but these attitudes are clearly a put off.

Is this thread a joke? Are you all kidding? Drew gave a very detailed and accurate post and all I've read are insults! Hasn't anyone realized that BJ does this for publicity to keep his tired, pilfered theory of ZT on this site so he can say everyone is talking about ? and now he proposes the same line to drew that he proposed to me about his critique of Mentzer.

"Let's do it in my publication so I can rag on you and you would have no recourse for debate!" Drew is smart, don't do it! I didn't and I'm glad. All of you are wasting your time, Dr. Darden's, and mine! Can we move on?
By the way, has anyone tried the kettlebell training?

But when the argument devolves to ad hominem attacks on physique development and other silliness, particularly by the very people who have a financially vested interest in this program (IART), I think people are going to be turned away from its possible usefulness.

If I hear 'ad hominem'one more time... Can't anyone just say insult anymore? This has all taken a turn for the sureal objectivistic.

By the way we're not making any money on the J-reps phenomenom as we are a charity or something and only want to educate.

Jreps are valid because enough people subscribe. Haven't you ever heard of 'rule by consensus'?

Ad hominem does NOT simply mean to insult somebody, though this is a common misinterpretation of the word.

You can insult somebody's physique and then critique their argument. Having insulted that person isn't a case of ad hominem UNLESS you are using those insults as justification in your rebuttal.

Example:

You have a bad physique, ergo your arguments concerning physique development are suspect and probably invalid - this is a case of ad hominem.

You have a bad physique but your argument is invalid for the following reasons - this is not.

It's possible to insult people without committing fallacies. Hinging your argument on the shortcomings of others is what crosses the line from being insulting to outright fallacious reasoning.

I see. So 'ad hominem' is always an insult, but a specific kind as you point out, whereas straight insults can stand on their own without relation to an agument or such.

It just reminds me of how people who are educated(not always a compliment) like you to know it by using latin words.

john38 wrote:
Is this thread a joke? Are you all kidding? Drew gave a very detailed and accurate post and all I've read are insults! Hasn't anyone realized that BJ does this for publicity to keep his tired, pilfered theory of ZT on this site so he can say everyone is talking about ? and now he proposes the same line to drew that he proposed to me about his critique of Mentzer.

"Let's do it in my publication so I can rag on you and you would have no recourse for debate!" Drew is smart, don't do it! I didn't and I'm glad. All of you are wasting your time, Dr. Darden's, and mine! Can we move on?
By the way, has anyone tried the kettlebell training?

JOhn, I have tried and still use kettle bell training to a degree - it is great fun and tough - work outdoors in bear feet if you can and learn the throws and catches:)

Ham

Yes they maybe be explosive and all the bad things but it doesnt change they are fun and great for coordination:)

1. When I debate people in the I.A.R.T. journal I provide that person first and last say. We exchange written arguments back and forth until neither of us have anything futher to exchange. It is in no one's favor, and particularly my own, and so please do not ASSume anything about how I operate or my professionalism.

2. People who buy a book from the I.A.R.T. are not 'affiliated' with the organization. That's like saying I'm affiliated with Sears since I bought a pair of pants from the company. Andrew Shortt is the only person on this board who has I.A.R.T. certification, and even then, I don't control his thoughts, beliefs, interests, or passions in exercise.

3. In regard to testimonials, these are people who have tried many other things including Dogg Crapp training. For those on the Dogg Crapp board and who do not mention JReps, well... how many on that board have heard of the method, know what it is, know how to implement it, and have purchased the first book? As with any discipline, not everyone can know of everything, particularly something not advertised or mentioned in magazines or some other medium that would get out into the public large-scale. As stated already, I visit 3 forums only, and I have no idea what forums other people who enjoy JReps visit, or if they even bother to share their experiences.

4. As to John38's comments about me keeping these threads alive, and as I stated to Drew and others, who are the people who START these threads? And then you have John38 contributing to them, to keep them going, by talking about how I keep them going.

5. I certainly am not putting down Drew's physique... there is no need to since it is apparent he works out. THE ISSUE IS the changes people make through training. For example, if I never put on any mass from this method, I would not have written about it, except in passing as a means of trying something new, etc. If I was not achieving the best workouts I have ever experienced (pump, mind-muscle link, great feel and targeting) then, again, I would not write about it to the extent in which I do. My focus is on optimizing the training experience on several levels, which is why I keep honing this methods (and with vital contributions from its users, including Mr. Shortt).

Now, based on the above, what we have are people who were not making much if any progress for several months or even years... maintaining at best, who have tried many different things, and who now are making progress on this method. And so, it is not an issue of "his body is not as good," or "there are better physiques on this site than on that site," but what kind of change has been produced from one point to another within each individual... and, as important... as it pertains to advanced trainees trying to eke out those last few gains?

And so, we have a person saying it is illogical to argue based on what a person's physique looks like, and then turns around and suggests that because some physiques on one site are better than physiques on another site, that holds some validity. How irrational! What should be asked is, how much more have the physiques on any site improved over time, and how quickly were those changes realized (and again, are the people beginners, intermediates, or advanced)?

Andrew Shortt is a good example... a 12-pound increase within months after not being able to make any change, no matter how hard he trained and what he tried (negative-only, forced reps, HD I, HDII, rest-pause, etc). It is not an issue of what he looks like now (and he looks good), but the change that was made in this advanced trainee.

This is what makes a method justified. Not what some research indicates (research that DID NOT compare JReps to anything else), but the actual practical effects its users are experiencing relative to what they have experienced beforehand.

And so, when it is concluded that "The obvious answer is that the physiques of these individuals are totally irrelevent to the argument.," that is far from the truth, since what changes a person is able to make relative to his or her background in exercise signifies the value of the implemented protocol(s). Again, it is not an issue of comparing physiques, but comparing changes of the same physiques.

And then there is this comment: "Yes, the case studies are data points of sorts, but given the lack of controls (i.e. when one says "my diet remained the same," minus strict observation of such, we have NO way of knowing this other than simply taking an individual's word for it), one cannot use them as a sole resource of justification."

There is truth in this, but if feedback from a method's users is not accepted (and that includes Dr. Darden's clients and readers of his books), then how does one determine the value of a method that has not been studied in depth?

As a side note, relative to what Drew argued, consider that research may indicate that the most important factor in hypertrophy is the strain on the tissue (the load... and I agree it is vital since how does one grow larger muscles if a load did not exist?). Please show me where in this research that it talks about HOW the load should be used, the various comparisons, etc., to either support or denounce JReps, FROM, POF, Dogg Crapp, etc., in regard to optimizing muscular hypertrophy. This is why there are so many 'methods' out there, since no specific conclusions have been drawn except to say that load is important.

And with 'load' in mind, and I stated this already, a person can lift heavier weights, but if he alters form to bring in other muscles, then more growth to the intended muscle will not happen. If there is too much repetition in the same exercises (even if loads increase), the body adapts to the stimulus and growth will not occur. And it is a fact (whether some want to accept it or not) that it is easier to integrate and coordinate full body tension when doing FROM than when working in zones... even if you try to relax as much as possible in either instance (this factor is detailed in the second book).

Next, an above poster talks about people supporting Dogg Crapp training, but then denounces any testimonials for JReps. And then suggests we consider testimonials for Dogg Crapp training as an argument against the testimonials for JReps, and yet states that we can't take the word of those using JReps since observations were not strict. Well, you can't use one method as an argument against the other if both are at fault under the same pretences.

And in regard to observable changes and the validity behind such, if a person cannot tell what the heck is and is not working, then I don't know what to say. How does one determine the value of any particular method if we can't trust our own sense perception, when looking in the mirror, measuring body parts, being weighed on a scale, or using a reliable body comp device? Moreover, if change occurs, it does so rapidly, and often in spurts. It does not take a genius to figure out what the cause to the effect is when nothing else changes in a person's life. But let me guess, those who are doing JReps suddenly increased calories, started sleeping more, took the latest magical supplement, etc., and it was a coincidence that this method is working so well in advanced trainees, many of whom have trained in a traditional HIT environment for years. In fact, ask those doing JReps and they will tell you that they had to decrease calories because of the reduced systemic strain experienced from this method, viz., training is far more targeted and recovery faster, with reduced need for nutrients.

And then it was stated: "But when the argument devolves to ad hominem attacks on physique development and other silliness, particularly by the very people who have a financially vested interest in this program (IART), I think people are going to be turned away from its possible usefulness."

The only person with any sense of "financially vested interest" would be myself, but as already stated (I don't know how many times), I don't make my living from this organization, and if you think the sales from a handful of books makes a difference, then try running a business based only on that. Consequently, this argument is moot as well, particularly since I never put down anyone's physique.

In any case, I can tell you this much... thus far and with few exceptions (e.g., Baye and Hahn), every person who has purchased the first book has put in an advanced order for the second book... anxious to learn the advanced applications behind this method. If it was all 'hype,' do you think there would be that many fools (I do expect the fools on this board to respond sarcastically)?

logicbdj wrote:
Andrew Shortt is a good example... a 12-pound increase within months after not being able to make any change, no matter how hard he trained and what he tried (negative-only, forced reps, HD I, HDII, rest-pause, etc). It is not an issue of what he looks like now (and he looks good), but the change that was made in this advanced trainee.

I would like to see Andrew take another picture in the same pose, but without the ridiculous change in lighting.

Constantly and continually you call me names and make lowbrow insults. Fine, your real tough on line and believe it or not I don't mind this sort of thing like most do. I truly enjoyed Kickboxing 4-5 days a week for years because of all the harsh but fun camaraderie. We had all kinds or ego and scores to settle with each other and we did. Some never got along but we all respected each other in the end.

What bothers me about you two Mike Mentzer fans is your constant flip-flop in attitude. One minute you say the commentary is inappropriate then you do it yourself then back again. It reminds me of my daughters and their silly 'pecking' order games.

Moreover, don't think for a minute that my attitude towards Drew is misplaced, I have dealt with him before in a kind and professional manner and he treated me with gross disrespect. We have a bit of history beyond this internet chatter.